He who mounts a wild elephant goes where the wild elephant goes. – Randolph Bourne

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) has
incubated in relative obscurity for over 60 years, quietly changing our
lives with scant attention outside the technology community. First used
to identify Allied aircraft in World War II, RFID is now well
integrated in building security, transportation, fast food, health care
and livestock management.

Proponents hail RFID as the next natural step in our
technological evolution. Opponents forewarn of unprecedented privacy
invasion and social control. Which is it? That’s a bit like asking if
Christopher Columbus was an intrepid visionary or a ruthless
imperialist. It depends on your perspective. One thing is clear: As RFID
extends its roots into common culture we each bear responsibility for
tending its growth.

For Your Eyes Only

RFID functions as a network of microchip
transponders and readers that enables the mainstream exchange of more —
and more specific — data than ever before. Every RFID transponder, or
“smart tag”, is encrypted with a unique electronic product code (EPC)
that distinguishes the tagged item from any other in the world. “Smart
tags” are provocatively designed with both read and write capabilities,
which means that each time a reader retrieves an EPC from a tag, that
retrieval becomes part of the EPC’s dynamic history. This constant
imprinting provides real-time tracking of a tagged item at any point in
its lifespan.

Recognizing the potential commercial benefits of the
technology, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) began developing retail applications of RFID in 1999. Install a
reader in a display shelf and it becomes a “smart shelf”. Network that
with other readers throughout the store and you’ve got an impeccable
record of customers interacting with products — from the shelf to the
shopper; from the shopper to the cart; from the cart to the cashier,
etc.

Proctor & Gamble, The Gillette
Company and Wal-Mart were among the first to provide financial and
empirical support to the project. Less than five years later RFID has
eclipsed UPC bar coding as the next generation standard of inventory
control and supply chain management. RFID offers unparalleled inventory
control at reduced labor costs; naturally the retail industry is
excited.

Katherine Albrecht founded the consumer
advocacy group CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion
and Numbering) to educate consumers about the potential dangers of
automatic-identification technology. She warns that “smart tags” —
dubbed “spy chips” — increase retailer profits at the expense of
consumer privacy.

RFID provides a continuous feed of our
activities as we peek, poke, squeeze and shake tagged items throughout
the store. Advocacy groups consider this electronic play-by-play a
treasure for corporate marketing and a tragedy for consumer privacy.

Albrecht’s apprehension is
understandable. However, shopping in any public venue is not private.
It’s public. The decision to be in a public space includes a tacit
acknowledgement that one can be seen by others. That’s the difference
between the public world and the private world.

What if those worlds collide? CASPIAN and
other consumer groups are concerned about retailers using RFID to
connect public activities with private information. Because each EPC
leaves a singular electronic footprint, linking each item of each
transaction of each customer with personally identifying information,
anyone with access to the system can simply follow the footprints to a
dossier of the customer and their purchases.

Again, we must be clear. RFID does
enable retailers to surveil consumers and link them with their
purchasing histories. As disconcerting as that may be, it is neither
new nor unique to RFID. Anyone who uses credit cards agrees to forfeit
some degree of privacy for the privilege of buying now and paying later.
Credit card companies collect and retain your name, address, telephone
and Social Security numbers. This personal information is used to
track the date, time, location, items and price of every purchase made
with the card?

Don’t use credit cards? Unless you pay
with cash, someone is monitoring you too. The now familiar UPC bar codes
on nearly all consumer goods neatly catalogue the intimate details of
all check and bank card purchases. Cash remains the last outpost for the
would-be anonymous consumer. Of course, all things are subject to
change. RFID inks may be coming soon to a currency near you, but that’s a
discussion for another day.

If RFID is no more intrusive than a
curious fellow shopper or a ceiling mounted security camera, what is the
downside for consumer groups? If RFID is no more revealing than a bank
or credit card transaction, what is the upside for the corporate suits?
There must be more.

Indeed, there is. Bear in mind
that “smart tags” are uniquely designed to pinpoint tagged items
anytime, anywhere from point of origin through point of sale. And,
theoretically, beyond.

Ah, the great beyond. RFID’s potential
is limited only by our imaginations. And not just our imaginations; the
imagination of anyone who has a reader and a transponder. Wal-Mart. Your
employer. The government. Anyone.

Everything Costs Something

Members of German privacy group FOEBUD
see shadowy strangers lurking in the imagination playground. Their
February 2004 demonstration in front of Metro’s RFID-rigged Future Store
was intended to raise public awareness of the implications of RFID.

"Because the spy chips are not
destroyed at the shop exit, they continue to be readable to any
interested party, such as other supermarkets, authorities, or anyone in
possession of a reading device (available to the general public)... The
antennas used for reading are still visible in the Future Store, but
soon they will be hidden in walls, doorways, railings, at petrol pumps
anywhere. And we won't know anymore who is when or why spying on us,
watching us, following each of our steps." 1

Freedom is Slavery

Dan Mullen would call that an
overreaction. Mullen is the President of auto-identification consortium
AIM Global. He cautions that unrealistic fear can obscure the very
real benefits of RFID: “Many of the concerns expressed by some of the
advocacy groups are frankly, inflated. The technology can be set up so
that identifying information is associated with the item, not with the
people interacting with the item. Tracking individuals? That’s not how
the technology is used."

When asked, “Could it be used that way?”
Mullen was doubtful. “I don’t think so. Not at this point. And I don’t
see a benefit to anyone.” We ’d like to think he’s right, but someone
obviously sees a benefit. RFID has been used exactly that way.

Wal-Mart is one of the retailers who have
tested photographic “smart shelves” in some of their U.S. stores. The
technology did what it was supposed to do — photograph customers who
removed tagged items from a display. Unfortunately, Wal-Mart didn’t do
what they were supposed to do. Goliath didn’t tell David about the
camera.

The most disturbing aspect of the project
was Wal-Mart’s emphatic denial that they had secretly photographed
their customers. They weren’t confused. They didn’t make a mistake. They
chose to lie. It was only after Albrecht exposed the evidence that
Wal-Mart finally admitted conducting the pilot tests in an effort to
combat shoplifting and employee theft. After all, the argument goes,
this type of inventory shrinkage costs U.S. retailers as much as $32
billion each year. 2 Don’t feel too sorry for our friends in blue. The bill for this hefty loss is passed on to you and me).

The public was unmoved by Wal-Mart’s
defense, and the project has been aborted. At least for now. Wal-Mart’s
smiley face logo belies the arrogance wrought by its success, and we
will likely see the photographic “smart shelf” again. Or it will see us,
anyway.

Wal-Mart is somewhat like a spoiled
child, a casualty of indulgence, who is accustomed to doing quite what
he wants when he wants to and rarely anything that he doesn’t. It hardly
seems fair to expect the child to accept “no” when he only vaguely
recognizes the word, and even less so, it’s finality

Bear in mind that RFID does not create
opportunities for consumer profiling. We do. Every time we enter a store
we expose ourselves to scrutiny. Every time we purchase goods or
utilize a service we are assimilated, Borg-like, into the collective
revenue stream. Everything costs something.

Worldwide spending on RFID is expected to top $3 billion by 2008, almost triple the market of a year ago. 3
Wal-Mart’s decree that its top 100 suppliers must be RFID compliant by
2005 told the rest of the world to either get on the train or get off
the track. The U.S. Department of Defense has since issued a similar
mandate, and falling technology prices coupled with the establishment of
uniform RFID communication standards are making it easier for other
industries to do the same.

The War on Drugs

It’s no longer enough to
just say no to the schoolyard crack jockeys. We have new enemies in the
war on drugs. Our increasing reliance on chemical relief — born of a
pervasive spiritual poverty as much as our aging demographic— has made
us attractive to drug counterfeiters.

Counterfeit drugs are sub-potent or inert
imposter pills that are channeled into the prescription drug pipeline
and sold as legitimate medication. The World Health Organization
estimates that in less-developed countries as many as half of all
prescription drugs dispensed are counterfeit. 4 The economic cost to defrauded and dying consumers is staggering. And it is almost meaningless compared to the emotional cost.

Its conclusion? The supply of
prescription drugs in the United States is overwhelmingly safe. The
FDA’s complex system of regulatory oversight insures that with rare
exception, the pills we pop have been manufactured to the highest
standards of purity and potency, distributed safely and dispensed as the
doctor ordered.

However, later in the same report
McClellan warns that drug counterfeiters are better organized and more
technologically sophisticated than ever before. According to McClellan,
the FDA’s current system can not meet the evolving challenges of the new
century, and he recommends full-scale implementation of RFID technology
by 2006. 5

Without question, RFID is a more formidable guardian than our present paper-based drug
audit system. The savviest saboteur will find RFID tags extremely difficult to counterfeit
and almost impossible to do so at a profit. EPCs afford
flawless accountability, which is a distinct impediment to illegal
diversions and substitutions. And no doubt every overworked, carpal
tunnel-strained pharmacist would welcome RFID’s promise of tighter
inventory and simplified service.

Does this justify the enormous expense of
a complete system overhaul? Do the benefits outweigh the privacy
concerns? Are you comfortable enlisting RFID in the battle against drug
terrorism?

Before you decide, consider this: The FDA
may incorporate “at least two types of anti-counterfeiting technologies
into the packaging and labeling of all drugs, at the point of
manufacture, with at least one of those technologies being covert (i.e.,
not made public, and requiring special equipment or knowledge for
detection)...” 6

“Not made public, and requiring special
equipment or knowledge for detection”. Hmm... so, RFID tags can be
hidden in our prescriptions without our knowledge or consent... and we
will be unable to detect or remove them.

Consider, too, that companies in the
U.S., Canada, Sweden and Denmark have developed electronic blister packs
that monitor pill removal and automatically notify the physician’s
computer when a patient has dispensed (or neglected to dispense) the
medication as scheduled. 7

Here's a better idea. The FDA should
explain how concealing information from me about my prescriptions makes
the world a safer place. And then they can explain how spying on your
medicine cabinet — and tattling to your doctor — thwarts drug
counterfeiting.

The FDA’s prime directive is to protect
and advance the public health. They have done this remarkably well for
over 140 years at an annual cost to taxpayers of only about $3 per
person. 8 When evaluating any policy change the FDA must always preserve
that which is most fundamental to its success — indeed, its very
existence — the public trust. RFID may prove vital for the continued
integrity of our prescription drug pipeline, but never more vital than
the continued integrity of the FDA.

RFID is in its spring. These tiny chips,
sown by science and nourished richly by corporate support, will burgeon
beyond imagination, penetrating our lives like the roots of a willow.
This is the time for discourse. This is the time to shore our
boundaries. If we cede the opportunity to deliberate, we accept
surveillance as a norm. Our indifference will do nothing to stem its
growth.

Dennis Bacchetta is a Marketing
Professional who writes on a variety of topics, including emerging
technologies. Sally Bacchetta is an award-winning sales trainer and
freelance writer. She has published articles on a variety of topics,
including sales training and motivation, pharmaceutical sales and
current events. Read her latest articles on her website.